The court cannot direct the legislature to enact laws or the State to create rules for extending pensionary benefits to aided school teachers at par with government employees in the absence of existing statutory rules.

Order on Board

1. Counsel for the petitioner fairly submitted that in an identical facts writ petition was dismissed, case of the petitioner is covered with the decision passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court in WPS No.2789 of 2017 and connected matters.

2. Counsel for State also made similar arguments that of counsel for the petitioner.

3. The Coordinate Bench has dismissed the writ petition observing therein as under :

“15. It is well settled law that the Court cannot direct the legislature to enact a particular law for reason that under the constitutional scheme Parliament exercises sovereign power to enact law and no outside power or authority can issue a particular piece of legislation [See: Supreme Court Employees’ Welfare Association v Union of India Another (1989) 4 SCC 187].

16. Very recently the Supreme Court in the matter of Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade vs. Headmistress Girls High School and Junior College, Anji (Mothi), Tahsil and District Wardha and Others reported in (2025) 10 SCC 248 = 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 696 categorically held that the posts in aided schools are either sanctioned by the Government or approved in accordance with the Rules and pay and allowances are also paid by the Government. The aided school teachers are also entitled to some of the conditions of service as are applicable to government teachers, with entitlement of pension, provident fund and gratuity as applicable, in accordance with the Rules brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India.

17. It is noteworthy to mention here that in the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court held that the aided school teachers are entitled to some of the conditions to service as are applicable to the government teachers in accordance with the rules brought out under Article 309 of the Constitution of India whereas in the cases at hand there is no such rules which have been framed in the said provisions of the Constitution.

18. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered view that in absence of particular rules, the State cannot be directed to make rules by extending the pensionary benefits to the retired teachers/ employees of the aided schools at par with the teachers/ employees of the State Government.

19. In the result, all the petitions sans substratum, are liable to be and are hereby dismissed. No order as to cost(s).”

4. In view of the submission of counsel for the parties and decision in WPS No.2789 of 2017 this writ petition is also dismissed.